Why the universe is infinite and didn't begin as a singularity

Well, things get pretty complex when you move into the ontological cosmology.

First on gravity. Immersive gravity is starting to show its face. This would help explain some things and discredit others.

In bosonic and string theory the big bang is a part of a larger dimensional explanation of reality. The beginning is overshadowed by its infinite possibilities.

Cosmology is now being studied with technology as well as astrophysics so things are beginning to move along a little faster.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

What if a multiverse exists but it isn't infinite either? Furthermore. I just find the idea of infinity physically existing within THIS universe to be doubtful. I can't say anything towards existence outside of the universe as I don't know any of the rules that define that space.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

my intuition tells me that energy is never created or destroyed, it just changes form

I'm working by intuition. You're meant to be using science.

Why would how our universe being 'created' be a special event?

Doesn't science work on predictability? And so. If our universe exists. Why would it not be predictable to assume it's not so special after all?

Nice post.
So! the universe is flat!!!
The Flat earthers will Love this!

Or it could of been a containment failure of a power source that beings of unknown outside of our universe was using which then lead to an implosion that burst outwards creating a big bang event....

So many theories, but alas one thing is for sure, this Universe did not come out of nowhere, and it was not always here...we can see back to close to 500millions years after a massive event happened and the beginnings of that....

We can see the early universe and we can also see the ages of galaxies stretching far far back, the expansion of the cosmic background radiation it had a beginning that was highly energetic and explosive.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

But considering quantum mechanics seems to allow energy to be created I cannot rule out the possibly that energy can be destroyed. As I said though I believe energy is always conserved by creating an equal amount of positive and negative energy, so maybe if a positive particle disappears then it must have a negative partner that also disappears simultaneously, similar to the way entangled photons have an opposite spin to conserve energy and entanglement will force one particle to choose a spin when the wave function of its partner is observed and collapsed, forcing it to take on a well defined spin value. Also I think it's important to realize that however the energy of our universe was created it was a very special event, perhaps even a one-time thing. However the idea that energy could decay to create a non-zero-energy universe is still an interesting one that may be worth more consideration.

Energy, positive or negative is still energy. Having equal amounts of it still equals something. What does an equal amount of energy add up to?

I prefer the Cal Naughton, Jr. theory: Picture the Universe as an Ice Dancer, dressed in an all-white jumpsuit, and doing an interpretive dance of my life. Or... the Universe in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I’m here to party. Or even better... the Universe with giant eagle's wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with an angel band, and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk!



a reply to: ChaoticOrder

a reply to: blackcrowe

It depends. The difference between laws and theories in science are often confusing to people.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

my intuition tells me that energy is never created or destroyed, it just changes form

I'm working by intuition. You're meant to be using science.

Why would how our universe being 'created' be a special event?

Science does tell us energy cannot be created or destroyed, although as I tried to explain it's probably not quite that simple. And I mean special as in very rare and something which is atypical within the normal realms of physics.

Energy, positive or negative is still energy. Having equal amounts of it still equals something. What does an equal amount of energy add up to?

Why do I have to explain this in every single thread I make which has anything to do with negative energy... the positive energy cancels out the negative energy, similar to the way -1+1=0. That's why it's called a zero-energy universe, yes the energy is something but when summed together the result is zero, meaning no energy conservation laws are violated.

Here is an explanation from Hawking which may make more sense to you:

The idea of the singularity (a place of infinite density) according to the Big Bang may not be an actual physical singularity, but simply the place where physics as we know it can no longer describe the nature of it. The math suggests its singularity, but it might not really be a one-dimensional dot with infinite density.

The Big Bang does not attempt to describe that mathematical singularity, because physics cannot deal with infinity -- i.e., "infinity" usually raises a red flag in physics, and often means "something is wrong with our understanding". That is, infinity (such as "infinitely large", "infinitely small", "infinitely dense", "infinitely energetic", etc. may not really exist in the physical world.

So instead of the Big Bang attempting to described the "thing" that existed before the universe, all that the Big Bang attempts to explain is what happened in the milliseconds, microseconds, and even fractions of a picosecond after whatever "thing"Banged (The Big Bang theory does not attempt describe what exactly banged).

If we look back through the life of the universe, the math does in fact seem to trend backwards towards a singularity, but a physicist who studies the Big bang would probably tell you that does not mean it was actually a physical singularity, but instead something that the math and physics cannot describe.

That is to say, it is NOT the case that that all of the matter in the universe was once packed into a singularity of infinite density. Instead, that all matter was created AFTER the big bang (so that matter didn't need to be packed into a singularity). But those same physicist would tell you they don't know what it was that "banged".

My favorite part is how in the first fractions of a second they can say the universe was the size of an atom, then a few fractions later its the size of our solar system, but then fast forward 14 billion years and now it's infinite...

So something that is finite at one point in time can expand enough to eventually become infinite? Where's the transition point?

originally posted by: face23785
My favorite part is how in the first fractions of a second they can say the universe was the size of an atom, then a few fractions later its the size of our solar system, but then fast forward 14 billion years and now it's infinite...

So something that is finite at one point in time can expand enough to eventually become infinite? Where's the transition point?

In the standard model of the universe the way Physicists are currently describing it, it is yet undetermined if the universe is infinite or finite. They simply don't know the answer.

Some say it could be that our universe is finite, but there are other (infinitely many?) universes.

reply to: ChaoticOrder

It's doesn't take much imagination to see existence is recursive in nature. The finite amount of mass in the Universe and the evidence of a Big Bang can be easily explained by the idea that a star of sufficient mass collapsing to a black hole will create a big bang in newly create space-time dimension. Given every star in our Universe capable of collapsing into a black hole will create a big bang in a newly created space-time dimension, then this IS a much bigger view of Time than just our primitive view that this is the only Universe that matters.

I think in any discussion about the true nature of the Universe has to include some philosophical ideas about the limitations of language and assuming the Universe can be represented accurately and completely with mathematics. If you think of language semantics as positive and negative space like an Escher print, then every system of thought must be a complete whole within a single point of realization.

Considering every mystic from the beginning of time has claimed the entirety of all existence can be found in the smallest part one can experience, then the problem we have now is with the current standard model of physics we do not have hard determinism. In order to complete a positive and negative space of semantics with the current standard model of physics, you must consider a many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics combined with a multi-verse in which every possible quantum state is realized and hard determinism actually DOES exists within a single point of realization.

Even though within our limited point of view, everything appears to be finite, in the much larger whole, infinity does exist, hard determinism does exists, and every possible amount of finite matter in a Universe is explained along with all the currently accepted Universal constants required to make the mathematics have sense. Experimental error comes from rogue waves converging because every possible quantum state MUST be realized. And in some alternate dimension nothingness is realized.

Unless you have a theory that explains why we have the amount of finite mass we find in the Universe, where experimental error comes from, and why the Universal constants are defined as they are, then what's the point?????

"Point", nice pun!

whats the universe contained in? whats it inside of?


expanding? HA! inside of what?!?

scientists think theyre so smart. Yeah, i could have gone to school to become a theoretical physicist too and contort math formulae all day long until i find a way to support my goofy ass theory.

Guess what, still cant answer and never will be able to answer questions even a child can come up with.

originally posted by: tribal
whats the universe contained in? whats it inside of?
expanding? HA! inside of what?!?

Although it is hard to comprehend, the Universe is contained within itself recursively like a "Klein Bottle".

abyss.uoregon.edu...

originally posted by: tribal
scientists think theyre so smart. Yeah, i could have gone to school to become a theoretical physicist too and contort math formulae all day long until i find a way to support my goofy ass theory.

Guess what, still cant answer and never will be able to answer questions even a child can come up with.

Scientists are smart just like Michael Jordon is good at basketball. Just because you use a toilet everyday doesn't make you a master plumber. Maybe it is you who is is not so smart. Maybe it is you who has goofy ass theory based on superstitious nonsense.

a reply to: dfnj2015

you cant be serious. How are you able to imagine something not being inside something else? There is simply no example of it anywhere we are able to observe making the theory totally a priori, without precedent and therefore without merit.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Firstly, where did you get the idea there's a finite amount of mass in the universe? That's an unanswered question. Secondly, reality is not fractal, quantum mechanics says there is such a thing as the small possible unit of energy, a small particle, etc. If that wasn't the case, the combination of possible particles would be infinite and wouldn't form the well defined elements we see around us. Thirdly, even if the many worlds interpretation is true it wouldn't make a difference to what I have said here, it would just mean there are an infinite number of time lines.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

In terms of time lines, it's probably delusional to think everything than can possibly happen isn't all happening all at once since without a point of reference there is no division. But if it floats your boat then time is definitely linear.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
hard determinism actually DOES exists within a single point of realization.

Can you expand a bit on why you think this must be?

Think the Ekpyrotic Universe Theory looks the best of the bunch at the moment but I remember watching Edward Witten admitting that it may take a few centuries for String theory to evolve as the mathematics are extemely difficult. If two branes did collide and stick to one another creating our universe then its also possible that new energy/matter is still entering our realm.

Personally I find it interesting that hindu veda's tells that the breath of vishnu has been expelling matter into a universe for the last 155.521972944 trillion years. That when vishnu breaths in, the universe will end, with the complete cycle lasting 311.04 trillion years. So what we percieve as the centre of the universe might be just an eddy current if you like in a vastly more massive universe, iuf ancient wisdom is correct.

Very well presented thread. Starred.